A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Things to think of before you get married again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old October 11th 06, 04:26 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder of
all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man
without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...


So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it
about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to
pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...
  #202  
Old October 11th 06, 04:30 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote

.................................
Last time I looked, we called that "adoption."
==
Then I suggest you look again.

I asked you what "baby dropoff" was.

Instead of responding with substance, you respond with a sleazy cheap
shot.

==
"Sleazy?" "Cheap shot?" You don't get out much, do you Fred?
==
If you are going to play cheap, sleazy games, I won't deal with you.

Now then, what's "baby dropoff"?

And don't refer me to Andre's screed. I want a substantive description
that differentiates between whatever y'all are talking about and adoption.

Now get to work or go away.

==
Do your own work. (You can't afford to hire me. )
See, I already know what it means so I don't have to look it up.


Then we have nothing further to discuss.
  #203  
Old October 11th 06, 04:43 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Bob Whiteside wrote:

So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively for

said
child
and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage, SUV
payment?


You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures
and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's
interest.


[sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts
have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the
mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced.


But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at
expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that
implies. Vicious circle.

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?

  #205  
Old October 11th 06, 05:13 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong

opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the

Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.


Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a

mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of

prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to

do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory
medical information."


So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.


I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want.

Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug
to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the
child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she
chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.


  #206  
Old October 11th 06, 05:17 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively

for
said
child
and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage,

SUV
payment?


You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures
and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's
interest.


[sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts
have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the
mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced.


But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at
expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that
implies. Vicious circle.

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?


I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to pay
the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves.


  #207  
Old October 11th 06, 05:29 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities!
I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on
what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle
their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman
does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man
left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you
wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's
responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an
issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme
of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post
conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with
the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences
that follow from those choices should also be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to
let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is
pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm
around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even
if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that
to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the
birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as
well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and
from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow
from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all
that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not
undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves
the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward
the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child
he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the
bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent,
the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the
parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights?


Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same
rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50
is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad
wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants
80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on
her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses.


"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other
parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required
to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's
the *other* parent's expense)


Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when
kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should
*anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to?


  #208  
Old October 11th 06, 05:32 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.


Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory
medical information."


So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.

Personally, given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse/hospital. Best
of a set of bad alternatives.


Ah...so you find it ok for a woman to abandon a child, but abhorrent for a
man to do so? Why is that, Fred?


  #209  
Old October 11th 06, 05:33 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Things to think of before you get married again..



Phil wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


Phil wrote:



Equality is bigotry??? I suppose freedom is slavery as well?


Your attitude here is double-plus ungood.

- Ron ^*^



You speak newspeak. Kool


Don't the Family Court judges, lawyers, legislators, and their
hangers-on all speak it as well?

- Ron ^*^

  #210  
Old October 11th 06, 05:35 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of
informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither
and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those
consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in
financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always
about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the
same,
such as abortion, baby dropoff?


What's "baby dropoff"?


[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant
child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery"
laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in
progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to
do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they
aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal
consequences...note that in all but two states this provision is NOT
available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide
identification...for future child support no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of
info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read
yourself...


Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at
a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse.
How about you?


So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a daddy to
take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away, no questions
asked?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 28th 05 06:27 AM
Parent-Child Negotiations Nathan A. Barclay Spanking 623 January 28th 05 05:24 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 November 28th 04 06:16 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.